Maybe don’t use slaves in your factories if you do not want to be black listed it’s that simple 💅
Removed by mod
Do you have a good source for this? I lean towards that opinion as well, but i don’t have any direct sources.
Then why does US law explicitly allow slave labour? Do they blacklist themselves as well?
Yes everyone on the list is black.
Nice whataboutism. Don’t talk to me as if I was from the US. I’d personally want US goods produced by slave labor blacklisted too.
You said the secret word!
How is it whataboutism if the US bans importing goods made with slave labour if they themselves make use of it? That is just hypocriticism on the US’ side.
How is it whataboutism
The part where you go “whatabout” and then draw attention away from what the discussion is about.
Downvote this comment to enshrine your ignorance to reality
It doesn’t take attention away in this case. If the US is like, “hey, don’t use slavery in your factories”, it’s a massive hypocritical statement. Especially considering the 13th amendment allows slavery for criminal convictions.
It’s a clear point of stating, “bro, WTF you gettin’ on my ass about slavery when you’re using it right fucking now!”
I get it now, it’s fine that china has slaves. Full stop.
I like the cheap products I get from the sweat shops so I’ll just stfu and let all this slavery happen. America bad lmao
What?
They’re both in the wrong, the US and China.
Well, it’s not that easy though, is it. You cannot prove a negative. So if I accused you of some sickening murder rape robbing spree where you harmed 20 people and by law it was on you to prove that you didn’t do it, you’d be fucked because you couldn’t prove that something isn’t true.
I mean, screw this og so poor multi billion company and their
worthless pieces f shitlaser printers, yet I am wary of the increasing tendency internationally to flip “in dubio pro reo” on it’s head.This is wrong. It’s actually the opposite in that falsification is the only way to determine actual truth. In your example, one could prove they didn’t go on the spree if they were in prison at the time, or were in another country giving lectures or something…
The presumption of innocence is used precisely because it is far easier to prove a negative. ie: The accused didn’t kill the victim. Proof can be ANY fact that demonstrates the accused incapable of performing the crime (location, physical ability, etc…)
vs: The accused killed the victim. Proof needs to include AS MANY AS POSSIBLE of: proximity, motive, physical and mental ability, video footage of the crime, etc…
Even with all that, you still aren’t sure the accused is guilty. Police could show up with the accused kneeling over the victim, weapon in hand, covered in evidence, with a slew of testimonials saying accused hated the victim, with video showing the crime and it STILL be able to be disproven. (Say accused was performing first aid, happened to pick up the weapon with poor timing, neighbours all hate the accused and are lying, video is doctored). ie: no signs of struggle on the accused, actual criminal caught and admits guilt (showing how the previous evidence was doctored) etc…
I fear you are mistaken in what a “negative” and what a “positive” is in terms of proof.
Proving a positive means that you proove that something is actually the case. For example: I have your purse, so that’s a possible proof that I stole it
A “negative” would be to prove that something is not the case. Which you can’t. The fact that I don’t have your purse on me is not proof that I didn’t steal it. I could have easily hidden it somewhere.
You can prove negatives only by proving a positive that makes the negative impossible. “I could not have stolen your purse (negative) because I was in prison at the time (positive)”.That’s exactly what your examples do.
It’s actually the opposite in that falsification is the only way to determine actual truth.
I think you misunderstood this. Yes, falsification is extremely important especially in science. But “falsification” is not the same thing as “proving a negative”.
Falsification: “You calculated that there must be a second star in our solar system, yet I have found some factors that make your calculations impossible, so your calculations cannot be correct”
Proving a negative: Prove to me that there is actually not a disgruntled furby who personally keeps the sun’s fusion reactions going. (Hint: you can’t)The presumption of innocence is used precisely because it is far easier to prove a negative. ie: The accused didn’t kill the victim. Proof can be ANY fact that demonstrates the accused incapable of performing the crime (location, physical ability, etc…)
No. Just… no. The assumption of innocence is needed to make it possible to prove a negative at all. By making the negative the default, any failure to prove a positive becomes weight for the negative. That’s why it’s there. If it was easier to prove a negative, you’d not need the assumption of innocence at all.
vs: The accused killed the victim. Proof needs to include AS MANY AS POSSIBLE of: proximity, motive, physical and mental ability, video footage of the crime, etc…
So proof needs as many things that are actually there as possible? Like… positives? Because you can prove those. That’s correct.
Confidently incorrect comment
deleted by creator
But… you know that a chinese factory does not need approval by US regulators to run, right? Like… the US doesn’t run the whole world and it’s not a normal thing that US regulators check out foreign factories, nor should it be.
Now if you get accused of using slave labour… how can you prove that you do not do that? You’d need to prove that the slave-labour-factories don’t produce anything that then gets sold to you, right? Because absence of slave workers in your factories is not proof that you don’t subcontract a slave labour factory. So you’d need to demonstrate that you’ve got nothing to do with them. But if you don’t work with those factories, you have no stake in the factories that exploit slave labour, so you can’t let (foreign) regulators into those factories. Now, even if you manage to do that, one could just turn around and say “Well, then you must use another factory we don’t know of, prove that this isn’t the case”. You cannot prove innocence, you can only prove guilt.
deleted by creator
well, technically they don’t. Nor does any other nation technically speaking need any justification to deny US businesses from operating there (see sanctions against Russia or the US ban of Huawei). Yet that is so oversimplified that I won’t even entertain the argument and it is way besides the point I was making originally.
Yet that is so oversimplified that I won’t even entertain the argument and it is way besides the point I was making originally.
I think that went perfectly to the heart of the argument.
Didn’t Volkswagen hire an independent inspector who found no evidence of slavery labour in their supply chain?
Pretty fuckin ironic of a stance for America’s industry to make
State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China - FP
No shit.
Yeah no shit, If no genocide is going on obv you won’t have sufficient evidence
some legal experts suspect China’s behavior may fall short of actual genocide.
Isn’t an all clear, it’s far from it.
Yeah you’re right that is why china should stay guilty until proven innocent, even when the evidence for genocide is paper thin in first place
The source I posted is western and the fact that they even acknowledge a lack of evidence is quite telling.
Since it’s impossible to prove a negative and taking western hegemony in (western) news sources into account makes i an almost impossible task to disprove the genocide narrative, I’ll post the Chinese perspective which provides a much larger context: https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang
That’s a dead link
Heres the original, I’ll check and update the post when I find an alternative
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/
Edit: Archive works again.
